Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[Oldstyle]

With all due respect, Paper...you're quoting case law from 1956.

Yes, Lois Lerner was asked to make an opening statement. She was not told what to include in that statement. What she DID that day was make the case that she in no way broke the rules and regulations of the IRS in the investigations of groups with names including things like Tea Party and Liberty. Once she did so she's opened the spigot on that topic and cannot then turn around and refuse to answer questions about a topic that SHE introduced!

in one sentence....

You cannot say "I did nothing wrong" and then refuse to answer the question of what it is that you did.

That is CLASSIC contempt.

Things are different in a courtroom vs a congressional panel.

Here, let a Fifth Amendment expert explain it:

Explain it

Gowdy’s outraged objection was met with applause in the courtroom. But James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, says Gowdy’s claim was “extremely imaginative” but “mistaken.”


Had this been an actual criminal trial, in an actual courtroom, and had Lerner been an actual defendant, then yes, it would not have been permissible for her to testify in her own defense and then refuse cross-examination on Fifth Amendment grounds. But a congressional hearing is not a criminal trial in two important ways, Duane tells Daily Intelligencer.


First, unlike in a trial, where she could choose to take the stand or not, Lerner had no choice but to appear before the committee. Second, in a trial there would be a justifiable concern about compromising a judge or jury by providing them with “selective, partial presentation of the facts.” But Congress is merely pursuing information as part of an investigation, not making a definitive ruling on Lerner’s guilt or innocence.

“When somebody is in this situation,” says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, “when they are involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a ‘selective invocation,’ as it’s called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves.”
\
In fact, Duane says, “even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, ‘That’s where I draw the line, I’m not answering any more questions,’ she would be able to do that as well.” Such uses of selective invocation “happen all the time.”
​

Expert: Lerner Didn't Waive Right to Plead Fifth -- Daily Intelligencer

Your "expert" is James Duane a professor at Regent University...and mine is Alan Dershowitz a renowned professor at Harvard Law School. I'll be honest with you...I had never heard of Regent University...I had to Google it...and him. Then I recognized him from his "Don't ever talk to the Police" video. It seems your Mr. Duane not only believes in his clients taking the 5th but advises them to never talk to the Police! To be quite honest with you I find Duane to be a bit extreme on the issue of cooperating with authorities.

 

[Oldstyle]

With all due respect, Paper...you're quoting case law from 1956.

Yes, Lois Lerner was asked to make an opening statement. She was not told what to include in that statement. What she DID that day was make the case that she in no way broke the rules and regulations of the IRS in the investigations of groups with names including things like Tea Party and Liberty. Once she did so she's opened the spigot on that topic and cannot then turn around and refuse to answer questions about a topic that SHE introduced!

in one sentence....

You cannot say "I did nothing wrong" and then refuse to answer the question of what it is that you did.

That is CLASSIC contempt.

Things are different in a courtroom vs a congressional panel.

Here, let a Fifth Amendment expert explain it:

Explain it

Gowdy’s outraged objection was met with applause in the courtroom. But James Duane, a Fifth Amendment expert at Regent University, says Gowdy’s claim was “extremely imaginative” but “mistaken.”


Had this been an actual criminal trial, in an actual courtroom, and had Lerner been an actual defendant, then yes, it would not have been permissible for her to testify in her own defense and then refuse cross-examination on Fifth Amendment grounds. But a congressional hearing is not a criminal trial in two important ways, Duane tells Daily Intelligencer.


First, unlike in a trial, where she could choose to take the stand or not, Lerner had no choice but to appear before the committee. Second, in a trial there would be a justifiable concern about compromising a judge or jury by providing them with “selective, partial presentation of the facts.” But Congress is merely pursuing information as part of an investigation, not making a definitive ruling on Lerner’s guilt or innocence.

“When somebody is in this situation,” says Duane, a Harvard Law graduate whose 2008 lecture on invoking the Fifth Amendment with police has been viewed on YouTube nearly 2.5 million times, “when they are involuntarily summoned before grand jury or before legislative body, it is well settled that they have a right to make a ‘selective invocation,’ as it’s called, with respect to questions that they think might raise a meaningful risk of incriminating themselves.”
\
In fact, Duane says, “even if Ms. Lerner had given answers to a few questions — five, ten, twenty questions — before she decided, ‘That’s where I draw the line, I’m not answering any more questions,’ she would be able to do that as well.” Such uses of selective invocation “happen all the time.”
​

Expert: Lerner Didn't Waive Right to Plead Fifth -- Daily Intelligencer

Here's where I find Mr. Duane's contention to be flawed. If Ms. Lerner were a witness who was issued a subpeona to appear as a witness in a criminal court case she would be forced to appear under threat of being found in contempt of court. That may or may not be voluntary.

When Mr. Duane speaks of "selective invocation" and a witness having the right to invoke the 5th Amendment at any time he's not stating the circumstances that the courts have ruled a witness testifying CANNOT invoke 5th Amendment protection...one of which is if the witness themselves introduces facts into evidence. As I said before the Supreme Court ruled that such an act was akin to turning on a spigot...what comes out cannot be put back...and because it was brought up by the witness themselves, the witness cannot then turn around and refuse to answer questions about statements they have made. IE...Lois Lerner cannot make a sworn statement that she didn't violate any of the IRS's rules and regulations and then refuse to submit to questioning as to whether that statement was in fact true or false.

 

[Little-Acorn]

As I said before the Supreme Court ruled that such an act was akin to turning on a spigot...

Where, exactly, does it say that in the 5th amendment? Or in any law that supersedes it?

because it was brought up by the witness themselves, the witness cannot then turn around and refuse to answer questions about statements they have made.

Where, exactly, does it say that in the 5th amendment? Or in any law that supersedes it?

Lois Lerner cannot make a sworn statement that she didn't violate any of the IRS's rules and regulations and then refuse to submit to questioning as to whether that statement was in fact true or false.

Where, exactly, does it say that (or anything that means that for a generic person and organization) in the 5th amendment? Or in any law that supersedes it?

 

[paperview]

Re: Dog and pony show scheduled for today with Lerner.

Emails show Lerner was willing to talk - even without immunity, in depositions with committee. Lois Lerner attorney negotiated over testifying, emails show - CBS News

Arsonist Issa doesn't want that. He wants the show.

That should tell you what you need to know. It's not about determining the facts (as we learned when he selectively released and excised portions of testimony) -- it's about the dog and pony show.

Issa is pure scum. Scummier than scum.

 

[paperview]

From link above:

According to the Journal, which reported on emails released by committee aides, Lerner was seeking the ability to give a private deposition even if she did not receive immunity for doing so in order to avoid the public attention. Then, insisted her attorney, William Taylor, she would have fulfilled all her obligations under the subpoena.


"I can tell you that we can probably move forward if the committee agrees that her appearance at a deposition would satisfy any obligation she has or would have to provide information in connection with this investigation," Taylor wrote on Friday. "For her to take the risk inherent in waiver (of her Fifth Amendment privilege), she would need assurance she is resolving her issues with the Committee." In another note to a committee aide, he confirmed she was willing to testify.


Issa did not want to cancel the planned Wednesday hearing - for which Lerner was seeking a delay - until he was satisfied she had testified fully.


A committee spokesman told the Journal that the emails were released in order to "set the record straight" about Lerner's willingness to testify.

Can Issa go out of his way to look any more foolish?

 

[JoeB131]

With Ukraine pushing everythig else off the news page I thought I'd post this. Seems Issa's committee has subpoena'ed Lois Lerner for a second chat. Conflicting evidence on whether she will testify or take the 5th. Issa says the committee now has information that suggests she ought to testify. I wonder what that is. I wonder why, if there was nothing incriminating going on, she is taking the 5th.
Will Lois Lerner testify before the House Oversight Committee? - CBS News

More along the lines of, why testify at all?

you know, Cap Weinberger didn't think he did anything wrong in Iran-Contra. He was the one who told Reagan it was a pretty stupid idea, and he was right. And he freely admitted that Congress.

Flash forward a couple years, and the man finds himself on trial for lying to Congress because Lawrence Walsh couldn't make a case stick against Ollie North because Ollie got immunity for his testimony.

 

[paperview]

With Ukraine pushing everythig else off the news page I thought I'd post this. Seems Issa's committee has subpoena'ed Lois Lerner for a second chat. Conflicting evidence on whether she will testify or take the 5th. Issa says the committee now has information that suggests she ought to testify. I wonder what that is. I wonder why, if there was nothing incriminating going on, she is taking the 5th.
Will Lois Lerner testify before the House Oversight Committee? - CBS News

More along the lines of, why testify at all?

you know, Cap Weinberger didn't think he did anything wrong in Iran-Contra. He was the one who told Reagan it was a pretty stupid idea, and he was right. And he freely admitted that Congress.

Flash forward a couple years, and the man finds himself on trial for lying to Congress because Lawrence Walsh couldn't make a case stick against Ollie North because Ollie got immunity for his testimony.

and then Papa Bush did his pardons...

 

[The Rabbi]

As I said before the Supreme Court ruled that such an act was akin to turning on a spigot...

Where, exactly, does it say that in the 5th amendment? Or in any law that supersedes it?

because it was brought up by the witness themselves, the witness cannot then turn around and refuse to answer questions about statements they have made.

Where, exactly, does it say that in the 5th amendment? Or in any law that supersedes it?

Lois Lerner cannot make a sworn statement that she didn't violate any of the IRS's rules and regulations and then refuse to submit to questioning as to whether that statement was in fact true or false.

Where, exactly, does it say that (or anything that means that for a generic person and organization) in the 5th amendment? Or in any law that supersedes it?

By your own reasoning Lerner could not invoke the 5th Amendment at all.
/end.

 

[The Rabbi]

Re: Dog and pony show scheduled for today with Lerner.

Emails show Lerner was willing to talk - even without immunity, in depositions with committee. Lois Lerner attorney negotiated over testifying, emails show - CBS News

Arsonist Issa doesn't want that. He wants the show.

That should tell you what you need to know. It's not about determining the facts (as we learned when he selectively released and excised portions of testimony) -- it's about the dog and pony show.

Issa is pure scum. Scummier than scum.

He doesnt want Lerner to say one thing to the committee and another to the press, to claim she was misquoted or taken out of context.
With this administration you shine the light of truth on them and they scatter like cockroaches.

 

[The Rabbi]

With Ukraine pushing everythig else off the news page I thought I'd post this. Seems Issa's committee has subpoena'ed Lois Lerner for a second chat. Conflicting evidence on whether she will testify or take the 5th. Issa says the committee now has information that suggests she ought to testify. I wonder what that is. I wonder why, if there was nothing incriminating going on, she is taking the 5th.
Will Lois Lerner testify before the House Oversight Committee? - CBS News

More along the lines of, why testify at all?

you know, Cap Weinberger didn't think he did anything wrong in Iran-Contra. He was the one who told Reagan it was a pretty stupid idea, and he was right. And he freely admitted that Congress.

Flash forward a couple years, and the man finds himself on trial for lying to Congress because Lawrence Walsh couldn't make a case stick against Ollie North because Ollie got immunity for his testimony.

Huh?
Cap Weinberger is dead.

 

[paperview]

Re: Dog and pony show scheduled for today with Lerner.

Emails show Lerner was willing to talk - even without immunity, in depositions with committee. Lois Lerner attorney negotiated over testifying, emails show - CBS News

Arsonist Issa doesn't want that. He wants the show.

That should tell you what you need to know. It's not about determining the facts (as we learned when he selectively released and excised portions of testimony) -- it's about the dog and pony show.

Issa is pure scum. Scummier than scum.

He doesnt want Lerner to say one thing to the committee and another to the press, to claim she was misquoted or taken out of context.
With this administration you shine the light of truth on them and they scatter like cockroaches.

That's a pile of shit.

Deposition is a matter of record -- and it could be released in full. That's not the way Issa plays though.

Like when he pulled this IRS Investigation: Darrell Issa Releases More Partial Transcripts Despite Calls For Full Accounts

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has continued to release only select portions of committee interviews with key Internal Revenue Service staffers despite calls to make the full transcripts public.

...
According to one journalist who attended a briefing session at Issa's committee office, the ground rules have been fairly strict: Reporters have been given access to a limited number of pages of interview transcripts from which they can take notes (no photocopies). And they have been given access to only a few interview transcripts at a single time, although Issa's staff has spoken with at least half-a-dozen IRS employees about the targeting of tea party groups.

================


That's what he does because he's a fucking showboating liar.

 

[The Rabbi]

Re: Dog and pony show scheduled for today with Lerner.

Emails show Lerner was willing to talk - even without immunity, in depositions with committee. Lois Lerner attorney negotiated over testifying, emails show - CBS News

Arsonist Issa doesn't want that. He wants the show.

That should tell you what you need to know. It's not about determining the facts (as we learned when he selectively released and excised portions of testimony) -- it's about the dog and pony show.

Issa is pure scum. Scummier than scum.

He doesnt want Lerner to say one thing to the committee and another to the press, to claim she was misquoted or taken out of context.
With this administration you shine the light of truth on them and they scatter like cockroaches.

That's a pile of shit.

Deposition is a matter of record -- and it could be released in full. That's not the way Issa plays though.

Like when he pulled this IRS Investigation: Darrell Issa Releases More Partial Transcripts Despite Calls For Full Accounts

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has continued to release only select portions of committee interviews with key Internal Revenue Service staffers despite calls to make the full transcripts public.

...
According to one journalist who attended a briefing session at Issa's committee office, the ground rules have been fairly strict: Reporters have been given access to a limited number of pages of interview transcripts from which they can take notes (no photocopies). And they have been given access to only a few interview transcripts at a single time, although Issa's staff has spoken with at least half-a-dozen IRS employees about the targeting of tea party groups.

================


That's what he does because he's a fucking showboating liar.

Wrong.
This administration has lied about every aspect of this scandal. Bringing it out into the open is the best way to figure out what happened.
Didn't Cummings selectively release transcripts to create a false impression? Yes, he did.
We need full and public disclosure.
Besides, if the deposition was a matter of record why would Lerner insist on keeping her testimony private?

 

[JoeB131]

With Ukraine pushing everythig else off the news page I thought I'd post this. Seems Issa's committee has subpoena'ed Lois Lerner for a second chat. Conflicting evidence on whether she will testify or take the 5th. Issa says the committee now has information that suggests she ought to testify. I wonder what that is. I wonder why, if there was nothing incriminating going on, she is taking the 5th.
Will Lois Lerner testify before the House Oversight Committee? - CBS News

More along the lines of, why testify at all?

you know, Cap Weinberger didn't think he did anything wrong in Iran-Contra. He was the one who told Reagan it was a pretty stupid idea, and he was right. And he freely admitted that Congress.

Flash forward a couple years, and the man finds himself on trial for lying to Congress because Lawrence Walsh couldn't make a case stick against Ollie North because Ollie got immunity for his testimony.

Huh?
Cap Weinberger is dead.

Okay, we all knew you'd miss the point.

 

[paperview]

He doesnt want Lerner to say one thing to the committee and another to the press, to claim she was misquoted or taken out of context.
With this administration you shine the light of truth on them and they scatter like cockroaches.

That's a pile of shit.

Deposition is a matter of record -- and it could be released in full. That's not the way Issa plays though.

Like when he pulled this IRS Investigation: Darrell Issa Releases More Partial Transcripts Despite Calls For Full Accounts

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has continued to release only select portions of committee interviews with key Internal Revenue Service staffers despite calls to make the full transcripts public.

...
According to one journalist who attended a briefing session at Issa's committee office, the ground rules have been fairly strict: Reporters have been given access to a limited number of pages of interview transcripts from which they can take notes (no photocopies). And they have been given access to only a few interview transcripts at a single time, although Issa's staff has spoken with at least half-a-dozen IRS employees about the targeting of tea party groups.

================


That's what he does because he's a fucking showboating liar.

Wrong.
This administration has lied about every aspect of this scandal. Bringing it out into the open is the best way to figure out what happened.
Didn't Cummings selectively release transcripts to create a false impression? Yes, he did.
We need full and public disclosure.
Besides, if the deposition was a matter of record why would Lerner insist on keeping her testimony private?

Liar.

No -- It was ISSA who selectively released it. Can't you read??

It was Cummings who wanted the full transcripts released.

They want to badger her in public -- she's even had death threats on her life -- and here she is willing to talk without immunity !

But Nooooooooooo! They don't want that. It tells you right there it's not about the facts, it's about the circus Issa runs and wants to play elephant trick merry-go-rounds.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a pile of shit.

Deposition is a matter of record -- and it could be released in full. That's not the way Issa plays though.

Like when he pulled this IRS Investigation: Darrell Issa Releases More Partial Transcripts Despite Calls For Full Accounts

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has continued to release only select portions of committee interviews with key Internal Revenue Service staffers despite calls to make the full transcripts public.

...
According to one journalist who attended a briefing session at Issa's committee office, the ground rules have been fairly strict: Reporters have been given access to a limited number of pages of interview transcripts from which they can take notes (no photocopies). And they have been given access to only a few interview transcripts at a single time, although Issa's staff has spoken with at least half-a-dozen IRS employees about the targeting of tea party groups.

================


That's what he does because he's a fucking showboating liar.

Wrong.
This administration has lied about every aspect of this scandal. Bringing it out into the open is the best way to figure out what happened.
Didn't Cummings selectively release transcripts to create a false impression? Yes, he did.
We need full and public disclosure.
Besides, if the deposition was a matter of record why would Lerner insist on keeping her testimony private?

Liar.

No -- It was ISSA who selectively released it. Can't you read??

It was Cummings who wanted the full transcripts released.

They want to badger her in public -- she's even had death threats on her life -- and here she is willing to talk without immunity !

But Nooooooooooo! They don't want that. It tells you right there it's not about the facts, it's about the circus Issa runs and wants to play elephant trick merry-go-rounds.

OK you can apologize for calling me a liar.
Bucking Issa, Cummings releases IRS transcript | MSNBC
You wont. You'll weasel out of it somehow,
The committee can badger her in private as well as in public, if it's all on the record and can be released. So why does she insist on a private deposition?

 

[The Rabbi]

More along the lines of, why testify at all?

you know, Cap Weinberger didn't think he did anything wrong in Iran-Contra. He was the one who told Reagan it was a pretty stupid idea, and he was right. And he freely admitted that Congress.

Flash forward a couple years, and the man finds himself on trial for lying to Congress because Lawrence Walsh couldn't make a case stick against Ollie North because Ollie got immunity for his testimony.

Huh?
Cap Weinberger is dead.

Okay, we all knew you'd miss the point.

We're discussing Lois Lerner and you bring up Cap Weinberger and Ollie North and I'm missing the point? No, I don tthink so.

 

[JoeB131]

Huh?
Cap Weinberger is dead.

Okay, we all knew you'd miss the point.

We're discussing Lois Lerner and you bring up Cap Weinberger and Ollie North and I'm missing the point? No, I don tthink so.

No, you aren't missing the point, you are deliberately avoiding it.

Okay, make it simple for you.

What compelling reason does Lerner have to testify? She's already lost her job. If Issa had something to charge her with, he'd have done so.

 

[paperview]

Wrong.
This administration has lied about every aspect of this scandal. Bringing it out into the open is the best way to figure out what happened.
Didn't Cummings selectively release transcripts to create a false impression? Yes, he did.
We need full and public disclosure.
Besides, if the deposition was a matter of record why would Lerner insist on keeping her testimony private?

Liar.

No -- It was ISSA who selectively released it. Can't you read??

It was Cummings who wanted the full transcripts released.

They want to badger her in public -- she's even had death threats on her life -- and here she is willing to talk without immunity !

But Nooooooooooo! They don't want that. It tells you right there it's not about the facts, it's about the circus Issa runs and wants to play elephant trick merry-go-rounds.

OK you can apologize for calling me a liar.
Bucking Issa, Cummings releases IRS transcript | MSNBC
You wont. You'll weasel out of it somehow,
The committee can badger her in private as well as in public, if it's all on the record and can be released. So why does she insist on a private deposition?

Yes, you're a liar.
A senior House Democrat on Tuesday defied Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) by releasing a full transcript from the congressional investigation into the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups.


The more than 200 pages released brought few revelations, but represented an escalation in the increasingly bitter battle between Issa and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the Oversight panel’s ranking member.

Read more: Cummings releases IRS interview transcripts | TheHill


“I got sort of tired ... of parts of transcripts being leaked by our chairman,” Cummings said on MSNBC. “All I want to do is make sure the American people have the full story.”

​

 

[paperview]

Which brought us to this guy...

A conservative republican.

"The transcript released Tuesday does not identify the IRS official who was interviewed, but he has been confirmed by outside sources to be John Shafer, a manager in the Cincinnati office at the center of the targeting scandal.
His account paints a fuller picture of how the IRS came to specifically focus on Tea Party groups.

According to Shafer, an IRS screener beneath him identified a tax-exempt application from a Tea Party group and brought it to his attention.
Shafer said he then passed that application along to a higher-up in an IRS office in Washington, who agreed the case qualified as high profile and said similar cases should be identified to ensure consistent treatment — “normal business,” as he described it.

“There was a lot of concerns about making sure that any cases that had, you know, similar-type activities or items included, that they would be worked by the same agent and the same group,” Shafer told investigators from the House Oversight and Ways and Means committees.

“If we end up with four applications coming into the group that are pretty similar ... we won’t want four different determinations. It’s just not good business.”

Shafer was adamant that politics were never at play.

He identified himself as a “conservative Republican” early in the interview...


Read more: Cummings releases IRS interview transcripts | TheHill

At the base, a conservative republican, and no connection to Obama.

Course Issa, after 14 or so months, 17 hearings - didn't include that or that the IRS also went after progressive groups, and Issa, in his usual dirtbag way, selectively released only partial transcripts, excising the part that showed just who was the genesis of the extra scrutiny for "social welfare" groups applying for tax-exempt status.

If the evidence is so strong, why did Issa do those things? We know why.

 

[The Rabbi]

Liar.

No -- It was ISSA who selectively released it. Can't you read??

It was Cummings who wanted the full transcripts released.

They want to badger her in public -- she's even had death threats on her life -- and here she is willing to talk without immunity !

But Nooooooooooo! They don't want that. It tells you right there it's not about the facts, it's about the circus Issa runs and wants to play elephant trick merry-go-rounds.

OK you can apologize for calling me a liar.
Bucking Issa, Cummings releases IRS transcript | MSNBC
You wont. You'll weasel out of it somehow,
The committee can badger her in private as well as in public, if it's all on the record and can be released. So why does she insist on a private deposition?

Yes, you're a liar.
A senior House Democrat on Tuesday defied Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) by releasing a full transcript from the congressional investigation into the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups.


The more than 200 pages released brought few revelations, but represented an escalation in the increasingly bitter battle between Issa and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the Oversight panel’s ranking member.

Read more: Cummings releases IRS interview transcripts | TheHill


“I got sort of tired ... of parts of transcripts being leaked by our chairman,” Cummings said on MSNBC. “All I want to do is make sure the American people have the full story.”

​

See I knew you would weasel out of it.
Yeah, Cummings released partial transcripts and created a non existent bogeyman. It was a complete lie, probably orchestrated by the White House to cover this up.
When they say, we want Americans to ahve the full story, that means they want Americans to have the story they are telling.
You're a worthless piece of shit liar and tool bag for this administration.